Throughout the course of this class, I have never really succumb to the idea that all Art has a message. So why do critics get to say why one piece of Art has profound political, religious or substantial meaning? Why are they the ones that get to determine how much a piece of art goes for during a prestigious auction? And why are certain pieces of art, like a painting of an Anime-like character a work of a genius vs. a phenomenal work of graffiti on the side of the bridge or building not something that even stands a second look at? I don't really understand who these "people" are that get to determine the magnitude of a piece of art or what even constitutes a piece of art. They seem to differ from time to time. Sometimes they are those graduate students with a MFA, or the Art critics who have no praise but only ways to break artists down or the old world Artists who just from genealogy inherit the ability to decide what’s meaningful and what’s not.
I do believe that even two year old children can be an artist. If you sat a work of finger painting next to a work of a more famous painter, would someone be able to tell the difference? There's a good chance that they might not be able to see the difference and could possibly sit for hours scrutinizing the brush strokes and looking in depth at the delicate way the artist slightly painted two blotches in the corner. I think Art is what the artists makes it. If there's any sort of love or desire or hard work put into any piece than it is Art. There has to be something different than when a regular individual sits down and decides they want to sketch out a still life. There might not be any motivation or other meaning that’s trying to be captured by the artist, but there is some sort of talent or skill or just plain love for the craft that has to be involved.
Annie Leibovitz performs on the level of two different ideals. She first does the work that will pay the bills. She shoots the pictures that tell a story and fit the criteria of being what the editorial magazine wants. Then she performs on a level for her self. She shoots the pictures that captures the stories that she wants to tell. These moments are not man made, nor are they photo shopped in any way to make sure that a certain story is told. They are raw, they are distinct and they are “Art”.
These days it is not easy to sell a work of art and make enough money to live off of. To be completely honest, being an artist has never been a profitable profession. It is not easy, nor is it something that sticks with one forever in terms of popularity. The time periods in which individuals are artists are a huge determining factor in whether or not a piece is popular, worth any sum of money, or a work of genius. The critics change constantly on their opinions concerning what is mentionable and what is drab. The art world is much like the fashion world or the music industry, it is ever changing. But the products of the art world are beautiful and they are inspirational. Art is ever changing. Something can be ‘in’ or it can be ‘out’, no one can ever really tell the outcome of how popular a piece will be. But a piece of art can have meaning to a person through all different eras of popularity, and that is why it is considered ‘art.’
Branin
Art Criticism
Throughout the course of this class, I have never really succumb to the idea that all Art has a message. So why do critics get to say why one piece of Art has profound political, religious or substantial meaning? Why are they the ones that get to determine how much a piece of art goes for during a prestigious auction? And why are certain pieces of art, like a painting of an Anime-like character a work of a genius vs. a phenomenal work of graffiti on the side of the bridge or building not something that even stands a second look at? I don't really understand who these "people" are that get to determine the magnitude of a piece of art or what even constitutes a piece of art. They seem to differ from time to time. Sometimes they are those graduate students with a MFA, or the Art critics who have no praise but only ways to break artists down or the old world Artists who just from genealogy inherit the ability to decide what’s meaningful and what’s not.
I do believe that even two year old children can be an artist. If you sat a work of finger painting next to a work of a more famous painter, would someone be able to tell the difference? There's a good chance that they might not be able to see the difference and could possibly sit for hours scrutinizing the brush strokes and looking in depth at the delicate way the artist slightly painted two blotches in the corner. I think Art is what the artists makes it. If there's any sort of love or desire or hard work put into any piece than it is Art. There has to be something different than when a regular individual sits down and decides they want to sketch out a still life. There might not be any motivation or other meaning that’s trying to be captured by the artist, but there is some sort of talent or skill or just plain love for the craft that has to be involved.
Annie Leibovitz performs on the level of two different ideals. She first does the work that will pay the bills. She shoots the pictures that tell a story and fit the criteria of being what the editorial magazine wants. Then she performs on a level for her self. She shoots the pictures that captures the stories that she wants to tell. These moments are not man made, nor are they photo shopped in any way to make sure that a certain story is told. They are raw, they are distinct and they are “Art”.
These days it is not easy to sell a work of art and make enough money to live off of. To be completely honest, being an artist has never been a profitable profession. It is not easy, nor is it something that sticks with one forever in terms of popularity. The time periods in which individuals are artists are a huge determining factor in whether or not a piece is popular, worth any sum of money, or a work of genius. The critics change constantly on their opinions concerning what is mentionable and what is drab. The art world is much like the fashion world or the music industry, it is ever changing. But the products of the art world are beautiful and they are inspirational. Art is ever changing. Something can be ‘in’ or it can be ‘out’, no one can ever really tell the outcome of how popular a piece will be. But a piece of art can have meaning to a person through all different eras of popularity, and that is why it is considered ‘art.’